M/S Cropcare Supplies vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court quashed the order dated 29.03.2019 issued by respondent No.5. The petitioner was directed to approach the Nodal Officer (respondent No.4). Respondent No.4 was instructed to consider the petitioner's case in light of the directions issued by the Court in Writ Petition No.19076/2019 and other allied matters disposed of on 19.11.2019, which extended the period to furnish TRAN-1 to 31.12.2019. A suitable decision was to be taken to permit the petitioner to file/revise TRAN-2, either electronically or manually, on an expedited basis, within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court also noted that the respondents were at liberty to verify the genuineness of TRAN-1/2 on merits. The ratio of the decision is that where a taxpayer faces technical difficulties in uploading transitional credit forms due to defects in initial filings, and has made representations, the authorities should consider allowing manual or revised filings, especially in light of previous judicial pronouncements and extensions granted for filing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Cropcare Supplies, a proprietorship concern dealing in agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, was registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Upon registration under the CGST Act, 2017, they sought to claim transition relief by filing Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner contends that due to non-filling of certain columns, specifically Part-7B of Table 7(a) of TRAN-1, they were unable to upload TRAN-2. Their representation to the Superintendent of Central Excise and Central Tax was rejected. Subsequent appeals to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) were also unsuccessful. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.03.2019 by respondent No.5, the endorsement dated 04.07.2019 by respondent No.8, and the order dated 16.08.2019 by respondent No.7, seeking directions to reopen the GST Common Portal to avail eligible credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file/revise TRAN-2, either electronically or manually, given the defects in uploading TRAN-1 (specifically Part-7B of Table 7(a) being left blank)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unable to upload TRAN-2 due to defects in TRAN-1. They relied on the principle that registered dealers who maintained books of accounts are entitled to transition relief as provided under Rule 117 of the GST Rules read with Section 140 of the CGST Act. They also pointed to previous High Court decisions in similar circumstances, specifically WP No.19076/2019 and WP Appeal No.1840/2019, which allowed such claims. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue side regarding the petitioner's inability to file TRAN-2. However, the revenue authorities had previously rejected the petitioner's representations and appeals.